silvershadow

I think at this point, we can pretty well agree that there is something like 80 years of oil left (trying to pick a middle ground). I don't think that anyone of us can predict what the energy climate is going to look like at more than 30 years out, much less 80 years out.

I can certainly predict that 30 years from now, we will see more coal usage (probably in the form of coal gasification) for both chemicals production and power production. Some of those chemicals will be turned into motor fuels. (Yes coal can be utilized in an environmentally acceptable manner). In 30 years we may even have commercial Integrated Gasification Fuel Cell plants.

We will also see more nuclear power, windpower, tidal power, and more biomass utilization. I also believe that oil will also be a major component of energy sources around the world. There will probably be other sources of power that I don't know about because they are in the back corner of some laboratory in some R&D center.

As to the accuracy of these predictions, come find me in 30 years and berate me if I am wrong. I probably won't be alive 30 years from now anyway.

devilock

I believe that the type of car we drive can affect our behavior. I personally tend to feel less attentive when I drive an automatic vs. manual. When I'm in an SUV or a large truck, I tend to have this false notion of "nothing can hurt me." This is why I'm afraid of our society constantly moving up to bigger and bigger vehicles. When is it going end? Pretty soon some of us will be pressured into getting an SUV just to keep up with everyone else. I don't understand why some people need to drive a military vehilce (Hummer) on a public road. Are they going to a war? That's a weapon,not a car.

cordycord

delivlock

[QUOTE]

Legal Bill

I think deferring to the market economy on every issue is just an abdication of government responsibility. Finite resources like oil require government oversight. Hell, why else are we in Iraq? Based on the market economy logic we should have just stayed out and let the market take care of our problems inthe middle east, sice oil is the key issue. If the government can invoke the military to protect our interests in oil, it can certainly impose some regulation to protect the supply from those who would simply waste it. The fact theat those who waste it are acting in a benign fashion doesn't change the outcome.


As to Shadow's comment about not being around in 30 years to see if he was right, let's say for just a minute that you are correct. I thought you had an SUV to protect the family? Aren't they important? Aren't they going to be around in 30 or 80 years? If they are worth protecting today, their economic future should also be worth protecting now.

cordycord

[QUOTE]

silvershadow

First - I don't have an SUV now - unless a Honda Element is considered an SUV.

Second, I don't consider declining oil production an economic travesty. Currently, the US is largely an oil-driven economy, but there are other energy sources out there. In 30 or 80 years, perhaps we will be a hydrogen-driven economy, or coal-driven economy, or nuclear fuel-driven economy.

The way to protect my family's economic future is to recognize the changing trends, and invest in such a way as to take advantage of those trends.

And rising energy prices only cause competitive forms of energy (and less volatile and less subject to the whims of geopolitics) to be brought into the market.

I've been in the energy business for over 25 years, so I have a pretty good feel for the capabilities of the various carbon-based energy sources. And I know that there are forms of energy other than oil that can provide electricity and motor fuels. So, I don't get too excited because I know that we are not imminently running out of oil, and that as oil prices rise - if they stay high - other forms of energy will be made available.

Legal Bill

Belittling me for being concerned about a finite resource doesn't address the validity of my arguement.

Increasing estimates is just playing with numbers. The quantitiy that can be pumped is the critical factor.

The market has already "sprung" into action. They increased the price.

You respond like I'm making things up. All of my concerns were raised a year ago here. Since then, gas prices went up over $1 to $1.50 a gallon. The barrel price of oil went up about $20 to $24 a barrel. No reliable or responsible expert is claiming that there are any vast reserves left untapped or undiscovered out there. China and India and other "third world" nations with huge populations are industrializing. Their demand will exceed that of the USA. My guess is that this will happen in about 5 to 10 years. Imagine ANY limited resource that experiences a doubling or tripling in demand. All the market does is increase the price. By the time the price "hurts" enough to change peoples car buying habits, it will all be over. The prices will not go back down. Sure, this will happen eventually no matter what we do. But why not try to plan for it and manage the event rather than burn the stuff up as soon as possible?

The government regulated exhaust years ago. Everyone complained and said you can't regulate the products of combustion. I was one of the biggest critics. But look at what the industry did in response to the regulations. In some places, the ULEV's exhaust is cleaner than the surrounding air. Tighter CAFE regulations would have resulted in far more fuel efficient cars today. The market is not producing them.

I think the market ideology is just like any other. You have to realize it isn't perfect and address problems by the best means available.

ralper

Unfortunately we forgot some of the lessons that we learned in the 30s and the 40s. The market is not perfect, and you have to address and adjust to it's shortcomings as necessary.

cordycord

Bill,

My intent was not to belittle. I agree with you on a whole number of arguments.

If you really want to involve the gov't, then allow them to incentivize low emission vehicles, offer tax breaks to companies who are green, increase incentives for alternative use fuels, etceteras. Every time the government inserts itself into the market--for example, making it almost impossible to build a new refinery--we pay for it.

And after the incentivization if people still buy SUV's, then just deal with it and be happy that the government isn't "retiring" your Austin Healey because of poor emissions.

I would also re-evaluate your consideration of our Iraq policy. If our main purpose to be in Iraq is oil, then Kuwait would be our 51st state by now, and we'd have taken "control" over the southern oilfields in Iraq as a means of paying for their liberation. As it stands now, Iraq is going to vote on a constitution that says all the oil in the country belongs rightfully to the people of Iraq--not "mostly" Iraq and some for the U.S..